You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

I meant, as long as you're taking something valid, as opposed to simple pleasantry irrespective of validity, but I see what you mean.

Typically I find myself going and looking things up -- yknow, actually TRYING to understand, before I criticize or write them off as incoherent idiots.
And even as I do this I find myself still saying it quite frequently. Though it's not usually a complaint about the lucidity or self imposed (and unenlightened idea of what that entails) of their argument so much as the validity.

By my calculation, nary oft does a human perceive all details of a situation, and only a fool would have himself or anyone else believe that there is such a thing as negligible data.
Not in the grand scheme there isn't.
And what kind of fool bothers himself to figure out only fragmented portions of the grand scheme? Inlets and bleeds from other systems often dramatically affect the outcome of other systems.

I meant, as long as you're taking something valid, as opposed to simple pleasantry irrespective of validity, but I see what you mean.

Typically I find myself going and looking things up -- yknow, actually TRYING to understand, before I criticize or write them off as incoherent idiots.
And even as I do this I find myself still saying it quite frequently. Though it's not usually a complaint about the lucidity or self imposed (and unenlightened idea of what that entails) of their argument so much as the validity.

By my calculation, nary oft does a human perceive all details of a situation, and only a fool would have himself or anyone else believe that there is such a thing as negligible data.
Not in the grand scheme there isn't.
And what kind of fool bothers himself to figure out only fragmented portions of the grand scheme? Inlets and bleeds from other systems often dramatically affect the outcome of other systems.

This is true. I may be understanding only in part but missing nuances here or there. I think that's probably true of most communication, and especially when the communicator has a stone-skipping communication style, if that makes any sense at all.

This won't come as a surprise to you but I thought I should make it clear in general that grokking your flow doesn't imply that I always agree with you. Except when it comes to House's type I usually think you're going off somewhat half-cocked.

The one who buggers a fire burns his penis-anonymous graffiti in the basilica at Pompeii

I think you enjoy being cryptic about esoteric ideas/concepts, I think that's just your style.

I also think you are *incredibly* smart but perhaps not the best communicator because it would seem that you, (sometimes), don't really care about being understood.

I think you have a playful way of constructing your points and conveying your ideas and that you most definitely have a unique style of expressing yourself, however, personally, I have some issues with what I perceive to be both your hostility and ego, and how these two things seem to negatively affect what would otherwise be your refreshingly cryptastic posting style.

`
'Cause you can't handle me...

"A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it." - David Stevens

That is not what I mean. I think I understand him, but there's always the chance that I don't. I don't have a problem following his arguments, unless I do and don't realize it. I get him, unless I don't. That's true of everyone, whether they admit it or not.

This paragraph is largely tautological, so I don't know what to make of it.

Yes, that is true of everyone... but what does that have to do with the subject? Does that mean everyone is coherent, or intelligible?

Go to sleep, iguana.

_________________________________INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

Some of his statements are impossible to understand without obvious modifications of our techniques of communication. Therefore some of his statements are unintelligible.

Usually I understand what he's saying without any trouble. Then again, I haven't read very many of his longer posts, presumably those to which you are referring.
Anyway, "intelligible" is clearly defined in subjective terms. What is unintelligible to you might be intelligible to someone else, particularly Neocapszy. Therefore this method of discussion is bound to run into trouble with differing perspectives.

I find him intelligible. I don't think it's so unusual for a young NT to not feel like he needs to or should explain himself to others. But eventually, you run into a situation where people will not meet you halfway, and you won't be taken seriously unless you're able to back up your arguments. Here on an internet forum, who cares? He's pretty entertaining for someone who has an extreme need for attention.

This paragraph is largely tautological, so I don't know what to make of it.

Yes, that is true of everyone... but what does that have to do with the subject? Does that mean everyone is coherent, or intelligible?

Sigh. No. It means that when I answer that I think Nocapszy is intelligible, I'm allowing for the possibility that I could be mistaken in that what I think I understand, I really don't. You know, like I said in that first post up there.

The one who buggers a fire burns his penis-anonymous graffiti in the basilica at Pompeii